with this consideration, that although in the morning water alone is seen to be offered (i.e. by Aquarii, or Hydroparastatæ) "yet when we come to supper we offer the cup mixed." Yet when we sup we cannot call the people together to our feast,--so as in the presence of all the brotherhood to celebrate the truth of the Sacrament. "An illa sibi aliquis contemplatione blanditur quod etsi MANE aqua sola offerri videtur-tamen cum ad cœnandum venimus, mixtum calicem offerimus. Sed cum cœnamus, ad convivium nostrum plebem convocare non possumus ut sacramenti veritatem fraternitate omni præsente celebramus.' Thus stands the matter. The aquarii had a morning celebration offering water in the chalice. Being heretics, they had another sort of celebration in the evening with a proper chalice; but this was no avail, cum cœnamus" we are not able to celebrate the veritatem sacramenti. The true Sacrament can only be offered up in the morning. The subsequent passage explains and confirms this. The aquarii are supposed to respond, "But then the LORD offered the mixed cup not in the morning but after supper." S. Cyprian replies, ought we then to celebrate that (Cup) of the LORD after supper, that by so multiplying Eucharists we may offer the mixed cup? "It behoved CHRIST to offer at the evening of the day, that the very hour of the sacrifice might intimate the setting and evening of the world, as it is written in Exodus (of the Paschal Lamb, Exod. xvi. 6); in Psalm cxli. 2 (Let the lifting up of my hands be an evening sacrifice). But we celebrate the Resurrection of the LORD in the morning.' Numquid ergo dominicum post cœnam celebrare debemus, ut sic mixtum calicem frequentandis dominicis offeramus. Nos autem resurrectionem Domini Mane celebramus." As a memorial of the death of CHRIST, with the avάuvois as its only element, the evening might suffice for the celebration of the Holy Sacrament; but when it passed from a memorial to be a thanksgiving, to be a mystical and tremendous exapioría, founded upon the Resurrection, it must be celebrated in the morning. These words ought to be graven for ever upon our memories, nos autem Resurrectionem Domini MANE celebramus. S. Cyprian, we notice, couples the doctrine which is involved in the Holy Eucharist with the time of its celebration. The Protestant Reformers are very fond indeed of the term supper as applied to the Holy Eucharist,-they cherished so highly the memorial of the death-they suppressed so much the Eucharistic Sacrifice. As our witness for the fourth century, we have selected a Father who can fairly be taken as a low churchman for his time—a man of vast ability, of unlimited powers of composition, of unvaried industry in writing, with by no means the same theological and hierarchical tendencies which shed such a brilliancy over the names of SS. Chrysostom, Jerome, Cyril of Alexandria; and above all, over the glorious Origen. In presenting the reader with a selection from the Epistle of S. Austin of Hippo, to his most beloved

son Januarius, "De Ritibus Ecclesia," we have found it so difficult to cut out a sentence here and there without crippling very seriously the sense, that we have ventured to translate the latter portion of this 118th Epistle entire, trusting to the reader's kind indulgence to give his best attention to the very unambiguous language which it expresses. Even in the fourth century the due observance of Maundy Thursday presented a matter of difficulty to consistent Churchmen: we shall see that some Councils, afterwards took exactly the position which S. Austin has assumed in the following letter.

"Mark you, with regard to the first inquiry which you placed in your Commonitorium, it is of three topics. You ask in these words. What ought to be done on the fifth day of the last week in Lent (Maundy Thursday), whether the Offering (or celebration) should be in the morning (mane), and again after supper on account of that which was spoken- Likewise after supper He took the cup'-whether offering fasting and after supper only-also fasting, we supping as usual after the oblation (sicut facere solemus). To these questions I do answer that, as to which of these practices is to be followed, if the authority of the Divine Scriptures prescribes it is not to be doubted that what we ought to do we read. And now let us dispute not how doing only, but how the Mystery (Sacramentum) is to be understood. Likewise if the Church throughout the whole world celebrates any of these. For if it is certain a custom prevails, to dispute it is of the most insolent madness. But this is neither the here nor there of what you ask of me. It remains therefore that concerning this third question—that when the custom is varied in different regions and places-that each one should act as he shall find it to be the custom in the Church to which he comes. For there are none of these things that are opposed to faith and manners, or are better in this place than in that. Now only for the sake of faith and manners ought pernicious customs to be abolished and others instituted. Even the change of custom itself which conduces to utility, disturbs by its novelty. Therefore that which is not useful is consequently hurtful from unfruitful disturbance. Nor therefore ought it to be thought to be established in many places that IT (Holy Sacrament) should be offered upon that day (Maundy Thursday) AFTER the REFECTION, because it is written, Likewise after supper. For when they had received the Body, That was able to be called the supper itself; so that afterwards they should receive the cup. For the Apostle says elsewhere, (1 Cor. xi. 20,) 'When ye come together therefore into one place, is it not to eat the Lord's Supper?' calling the very reception of the Eucharist itself the Supper of the LORD. A certain One (JESUS CHRIST) was more able to advise men, whether now having eaten on that day they should offer or receive the Eucharist; for it is said in the Gospel, But when they had eaten ... one of you shall betray Me. (S. Matt. xxvi. 20.) Afterwards He distributed the Supper. And it plainly appears that when first the disciples received the Body and Blood of the Lord they did not receive it fasting. But is it on that account to be a reproach to the Universal Church that it has ever been received by fasting men?

(quod a jejunis semper accipitur.) For so it was pleasing to the HOLY SPIRIT, in honour of so great a Sacrament, that the Body of the Lord should first enter into the mouth of the Christian rather than any other food. For so throughout the whole world this custom is preserved. (Nam ideo per universum orbem mos iste servatur.) For neither because the LORD gave it after food does it follow, that the brethren should meet together having dined or supped, nor that they should do as those did whom the Apostle (1 Cor.) reproves and reforms, mingle this (Holy Eucharist) with their tables. For the SAVIOUR did this (celebrated after supper) that He might the more strongly enforce the Night of this mystery, and because He wanted the more closely to imprint this (Sacrament) in the hearts and memory of His disciples, from whom, by His Passion, He was about to be parted. And therefore He did not command in what way it should afterwards be taken, that by the Apostles, to whom He was about to commit the Churches, He might preserve this tradition (servaret hunc locum). For if He had commanded that it should be received after other food, I believe that no one would have departed from that custom. Then truly the Apostle says, speaking of this Sacrament (1 Cor. xi. 30, 34), 'When ye come therefore together to one place.... And if any man hunger, let him eat at home.' Whence it is given to believe that throughout the Epistle he implies an order of worship which the Universal Church preserves throughout the world, to have been instituted by himself (Paul) which was varied by no diversity of custom. But a certain probable reason may have delighted some, that, on the certain day in the year upon which the LORD gave the Supper itself as if for a more marked commemoration of the Body and Blood of the LORD, it is permitted to offer and receive after foods. But I judge it to be the more becoming, that this should be done at such an hour, that he who shall have fasted, after the refection, which is at noon, may be able to go to the Oblation. Wherefore we judge that no one should dine (prandere) before that Lord's Supper. But some we do not dare to gainsay, and I should not consider this practice as established were it not that very many, and in some places almost all, are accustomed to bathe on this day (Maundy Thursday). And because some also keep the fast on account of the diners (propter prandentes) it is offered in the morning, because they cannot tolerate at the same time the baths and fastings. [Again it is offered] in the evening on account of the fasters (jejunantes). But if you ask me why the custom of the bath has arisen (upon Maundy Thursday), nothing more probable occurs to me thinking over the matter, unless the bodies of the baptized being defiled through the observance of Lent may at the fountain be freed from all offence against the senses, unless (indeed) they are washed upon another day, But this day is the rather chosen as being the anniversary day of the LORD'S Supper, and because it is granted to many to receive this baptism (hoc baptismum), many have desired to bathe with these and so to relax the fast. In the matter of these things being discussed as I am able I advise, that you should observe what I have laid down, as it becomes a prudent and peaceful son of the Church."-Vol. III. p. 191.

Instead of multiplying a number of short quotations from the

writings of S. Austin, we have chosen rather to deal with this one passage at length. It appears to tell its own story most distinctly, and the conclusion that we arrive at is this-that if so much exception was taken against an evening celebration upon Maundy Thursday, how stringent must the rule have been for all other days. The very mild and gentle way in which S. Austin treats the subject, adds the more weight to his testimony. If on Maundy Thursday an evening celebration be allowed, still such was not the custom of the churches of his time, and by all means there must be a morning one, too, and the most our adversaries can make of his testimony, is, that it not being a case of fides and mos, the practice of Maundy Thursday may be an open question. from the way in which the whole matter is discussed, it can be seen how exceptional was the custom of an evening celebration, and how, although it could contingently be allowed, how opposed it was to the views of even such a low churchman as the learned and pious Bishop of Hippo.

V. Later testimony upon the subject.

But

It was said at the beginning that this paper would be very imperfect and fragmentary, and it is felt to be the more so, in having to break off at this point of the argument. Out of several writers of these early centuries, we have only mentioned one in each century; one, the best known perhaps, but yet the particular passage in his writings, may have been passed over by us; a weak proof brought forward, and a more relevant witness left in the shade. From the fifth century to the time of the Reformation, the arguments and proofs might be multiplied almost indefinitely. Just let any one turn over the indices to Migne's edition of the great mediæval writings, and he will learn from a hundred examples at what hour in the day the Holy Eucharist was celebrated, and how it was never received except fasting. The whole doctrine of the so-called Reformation can be illustrated by this post-Reformation practice of taking common food in our homes first, and then coming with the belly full of meats," to receive the super-substantial food, our LORD's most sacred Body and Blood. The best evidence upon this question is doubtless to be obtained in the "De Catholica Ecclesia Divinis officiis," which contains papers by Walafrid Strabo, Amalarius, Isidore, S. Pet. Damian, Hildebert, and others. The custom of the Church from the seventh to the thirteenth century can thus be ascertained.

It may just be mentioned in passing, that S. Thomas Aquinas (A.D. 1255), in Quest. 147, Art. 6, Part VI. of the "Summa Theologiæ," proves it to be the law of the Church, handed down from the beginning. "Eucharistia debet sumi tantum à jejunis totaliter, (not partially, but wholly fasting), nisi in casu mortis." He repeats this again in the 80th Question of the third part, confuting all the arguments with which different men tried to

oppose the custom of the Church. Did time permit, a translation of the 8th Article of this 80th Question would be far from uninteresting.

VI. Testimony of the Councils of the Church.

A word must be said before concluding upon the Councils of the Church, whether Ecumenical or Provincial, which have legislated upon this subject. Here the negative evidence is of the last importance councils passed canons to correct abuses, and where the traditions of the Church were not interfered with, there no canons were made, it being unnecessary to enforce the customs which were universally adopted in the Church.

It must be taken then as a token that so few churches broke the rule of morning celebrations, that we have so few canons upon the subject. If the custom of early celebrations had been of local or late introduction, in very many cases it would have been broken through, and canons innumerable have been passed, to confirm and strengthen a wavering and unsteady law of ecclesiastical discipline. On this point the discipline was so uniform and so strict, that the rule was but very seldom invaded, and laws upon the subject were hardly ever required to call churches back again to their halting allegiance. We now quote the 29th canon of the third Council of Carthage, A.D. 397 :—

"Ut Sacramenta Altaris nonnisi a jejunis hominibus celebrentur excepto uno die anniversario quo coena Domini celebratur. Nam si, aliquorum pomeridiano tempore defunctorum sive episcoporum seu clericorum sive ceterorum commendatio facienda est, solis orationibus fiat, si illi qui faciunt jam pransi inveniantur."

That the Sacrament of the Altar is not to be celebrated but by fasting men, the one anniversary day being excepted, on which was instituted the Supper of the LORD; for if commendation is to be made of any departed, whether of bishops, or of clergy, or of others, in the afternoon (in post-meridian day), let it be done with prayers only, if they who make it shall already be found to have dined, Some laxity had crept into the Church of Carthage in the fourth century. Hence we read of this canon, and its express prohibition against private masses, even for the dead, being offered up in the afternoon, if the celebrant had taken food previously.

In the grand fifth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople, which was holden in Trullo in A.D. 692, and which is called the Quinisext Council, the authority of the Carthaginian Council is confirmed after the lapse of three centuries more, and shows that during the whole of these three centuries the same custom prevailed with regard to the Holy Communion. The translation of the 29th canon of the Council of Carthage runs as follows:

"A certain canon of the Council of Carthage directs that the Sacrifice of the Altar, (τὰ ἁγία τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου,) be not celebrated except